Re: Another Inconvenient Truth

On 18 aug, 03:48, William Hughes <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 17, 4:43 pm, Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Heh, heh. I didn't define my set theory to be about finite sets
per se. But, quite fortunately, it just turns out that infinite
sets are impossible with it.

So what? It is no great achievement to come up with a set
theory that does not contain infinite sets.

Your claim is that standard set theory gets the
wrong answers for "what is the probablity
that a number chosen at random from the set of all
numbers is even?" and "how many balls are in the vase
at noon?".

However, your set theory does not give different answers
to these questions, it just declares the questions
meaningless.

I have another theory that answers the first question, but
not the second one. And the first answer is 1/2. See below.

You are confident that you know what the correct
answers are, but you have no theory that leads
to these answers.

Not the "Bit mapped Set Theory" but the "Naturals Construction
Set" theory:

http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/13795822737a77ca

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
    ... But, quite fortunately, it just turns out that infinite ... Not the "Bit mapped Set Theory" but the "Naturals Construction ... Natural constructions set theory can answer the first question ... You do not have a theory that will answer the second question. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
    ... But, quite fortunately, it just turns out that infinite ... Not the "Bit mapped Set Theory" but the "Naturals Construction ... Natural constructions set theory can answer the first question ... You do not have a theory that will answer the second question. ...
    (sci.math)